The Evangelical Democrat

The candidate who is arguably injecting the most Christianity into his campaign–trumpeting his religiosity in every speech, asking what would Jesus do as a basis for public policy, and mixing the spiritual and the temporal kingdoms–is John Eaves, running for governor in Mississippi. He is a Democrat.

Mr. Eaves says, “I am a Democrat because I am a Christian.” He is pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and conservative on other social issues. But what makes him a Democrat is his stance against “mammon.” He has a populist economic philosophy that makes him oppose big business, moneyed-interests, and the wealthy in general. He is the champion of the poor, like he thinks Jesus was. Could you support someone like that, or does he make you see what can go wrong with Christianity in politics?

"In the Catholic faith, everyone struggles with chastity in some fashion or another. When I've ..."

Surprises from the LGBTQ Study

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • He opposes the wealthy, in general? Ha! Then he should look to the liberal big-government wealthy supporters of the Democratic party. He himself is wealthy. I don’t think much of wealthy people who feel guilty about it and become a champion of the people to assuage their guilt. Many good wealthy people help others with their money without wasting it on a campaign nor going public about it. How many people could he have helped with that 4.6 million dollars he spent on his campaign? I don’t think putting a horn-blowing Christian in government will somehow change our country. I’d rather see a poorer humble man win that seat.

  • Bror Erickson

    Yes it cracks me up when wealthy people point their fingers at the middle class, accusing them of not caring about the poor, and championing tax hikes, that take it out on the middle class. Mean while the rich get richer and the poor get more in number.

  • Joe

    I find in general that the evengelic democrats are usually more Jesus-was-a-great-person-lets-learn-from-his-example types and less Jesus is my savior types.

    And therefore they tend to bug me. But I am not a Repulican either. I am a conservative and usually the Repulicans offer up the guy that is most in line with what I think.

  • Hey, if the guy was in Wisconsin, I’d vote for him at the drop of a hat. Give me that rather than Doyle, the current stripe of Dem.

    Are there poor people in state and national politics? I’m not aware of any.

  • I think the guy has a great point, to a degree. There are a lot of places in the law where the rich and powerful are favored, from the establishment of tax exempt foundations to the NEA and PBS.

    Other examples; regulation, medical care taxability, agricultural and other subsidies, NEH, urban redevelopment grants, and more.

    So if he gets abortion and firearm rights right, and simply gets rid of subsidies/welfare for the rich, I could see myself voting for him against someone who wants to continue subsidizing the rich. However, if he wants to “soak the rich” and go beyond refusing to subsidize them, that would make it a harder decision for me.

  • Greg

    Voting for a Mr. Eaves would depend on who he was running against. If his opponent was a pro-choice RINO like Schwartzenenger or Guiliani then I would vote for Mr. Eaves in a heartbeat. If he was running against a Duncan Hunter or a Ron Paul I would vote for the Republican. If he was running against a Huckabee it wouldbe a toss up though I would probably vote for Huckabee.

  • I said poorer, not poor. What I meant was middle income. But given the current campaign spending situation, that is unlikely to happen.

  • tim prussic

    I think is fair to oppose the greed found in, say, the Republican base. If that’s so, it’s also fair to oppose the greed found in, say, the Demoncratic machine. It is wrong for business men to be greedy, but not for government? Is anyone REALLY, I mean REALLY so foolish as to think that big government assistance to the poor helps them in the long run? I think Jesus was a bit more *ahem* pragmatic than THAT.

  • Tim (@8), I am that foolish. Having just read Psalm 72 today, I might even conclude that Solomon was that foolish as well, with his bleeding-heart talk of a ruler that “will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy”.

    Not that I’m saying ALL government assistance is useful, but hey, government assistance to the rich certainly seems to help THEM out!

  • organshoes

    Charitable giving is generous giving, and likely more effective giving than ‘giving’ through taxation and dispensing through government agencies.
    It’s definitely more real giving, than any steady government dole gleaned from confiscation through taxation.
    I won’t presume that government assistance is the same thing as Christian charity.

  • fwsonnek


    Hmmm. I agree with you. but I don´t think it is an “either-or” choice the way you frame it. that is where you are wrong.

    “confiscation through taxation” and “redistribution of weath” by the way are not ´per se immoral. if that were so Jesus could not have said “render unto caesar” because monarchs, emperors, kings and governments have been “confiscationg and redistributing” since the dawn of history and God´s only comment on this to us to render unto those governments. and to do so with the same conviction and cheer with which we render unto God.